| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take II: Actually, the Vigilante archetype, with two clear sub-types (Stalker and Avenger), might offer a model for how to best deal with the default rogue. Maybe the rogue should have three sub-types players can choose from: a skill rogue, a magical rogue, and an assassin rogue, and one might take each of the above archetypes to flesh out the corresponding sub-type. That actually sounds pretty good...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^I like this idea for the Rogue Reloaded . . . .
Actually, this kind of thing should be used a lot more -- including for the Vigilante itself, of which most archetypes trade this out (and the Vigilante could have started with a lot fewer archetypes if the specialization idea were taken to its logical conclusion).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Vigilante is both the fixed fighter (avenger) and the fixed rogue (stalker.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there are other archetypes who can pull off guns (Tench Fighter, Steel Hound, Picaroon, Musketeer, ...). But I'm not sure there are other builds who can pull off a crossbow well!
The problem I have with most of those archetypes is that they don't actually pull off firearm fighting styles well. Firearms are extremely expensive, require extensive feat and class feature support just to function, have highly unfavorable misfire and reload rules, and their range isn't all that impressive. Being able to hit touch AC within the first range increment isn't a big enough advantage to compensate. Out of the box guns are just terrible weapons, and you need powerful class features to help close the distance with the vastly superior bows. Archetypes like these that give merely good class features aren't enough; they take guns from being useless to being just generally underpowered. To actually make a good gun user you need class features that would be blatantly broken if applied to bows. You need class features like gun training.
Trench Fighter is the only one of the archetypes you mentioned that actually shares the Gunslinger's niche and can potentially allow you to build a gun user without using levels in Gunslinger (though a 1-level Gunslinger dip might still makes sense, seeing as the Trench Fighter doesn't get firearm proficiency or quick clear). The issue I have with the Trench Fighter is that it was published specifically for an adventure path volume that takes place on another world that uses the "guns everywhere" rules. This means advanced firearms are available and all firearms are simple weapons (this is why the Trench Fighter doesn't explicitly get firearm proficiency). This makes me uneasy with referencing it for general play, as in the context of its publication it was very clearly never intended to be used in the Golarion setting and the standard "emerging guns" rules. I don't think it's broken or overpowered, but if the manner of publication matters at all (it's implicit in this conversation that we're talking Paizo-published only) then I think that's an important point.
That said, I do agree that Crossbows are in the same boat with the Bolt Ace. Crossbows aren't as dysfunctional as guns, but they're strictly outclassed by bows. Without a significant class feature to bolster crossbows, their only niche is their simple weapon proficiency, which is a non-issue for any martial build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there are other archetypes who can pull off guns (Tench Fighter, Steel Hound, Picaroon, Musketeer, ...). But I'm not sure there are other builds who can pull off a crossbow well!The problem I have with most of those archetypes is that they don't actually pull off firearm fighting styles well. Firearms are extremely expensive, require extensive feat and class feature support just to function, have highly unfavorable misfire and reload rules, and their range isn't all that impressive. Being able to hit touch AC within the first range increment isn't a big enough advantage to compensate. Out of the box guns are just terrible weapons, and you need powerful class features to help close the distance with the vastly superior bows. Archetypes like these that give merely good class features aren't enough; they take guns from being useless to being just generally underpowered. To actually make a good gun user you need class features that would be blatantly broken if applied to bows. You need class features like gun training.
Trench Fighter is the only one of the archetypes you mentioned that actually shares the Gunslinger's niche and can potentially allow you to build a gun user without using levels in Gunslinger (though a 1-level Gunslinger dip might still makes sense, seeing as the Trench Fighter doesn't get firearm proficiency or quick clear). The issue I have with the Trench Fighter is that it was published specifically for an adventure path volume that takes place on another world that uses the "guns everywhere" rules. This means advanced firearms are available and all firearms are simple weapons (this is why the Trench Fighter doesn't explicitly get firearm proficiency). This makes me uneasy with referencing it for general play, as in the context of its publication it was very clearly never intended to be used in the Golarion setting and the standard "emerging guns" rules. I don't think it's broken or overpowered, but if the manner of publication matters at all (it's...
Many of these archetypes don't even give you a starting gun, which means you won't be using some of the major features of that archetype for a good while. You're not getting one easily, either. Most gunslingers actually make their own guns instead of purchasing new ones, given how many settings like Golarion utilise the Emerging Guns rules and therefore gunsmiths are extreme rarities (For Golarion, Alkenstar purposely keeps a monopoly on firearm production for the time being, so any firearms come straight from there or were made by a gunslinger).
On a similar note, I'd like to say that a Crossbowman fighter can do crossbows reasonably well through Overwatch Style. This tactic is particularly annoying for spellcasters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Unfortunately, Crossbowman shoots itself in the foot for using Overwatch Style, due to trading out Weapon Training (and the replacement doesn't have the magic text that says that it works as Weapon Training), so the style can only be used with the weapon specified by Weapon Focus (until you pay the feat tax to get Martial Versatility (Weapon Focus), available only if you are Human or at least Half-Human).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree there are some draw backs. However I feel the emotional component should not become a problem unless madness rules or other effects that directly affect them, simply because the Kin. Should not be in range to get the affect. I am currently running with this class of character and the only time I was in 50ft or closer in combat was last session I played in ([there have been about 45 sessions with this character] and it was by choice) So I feel like a Kin. with extended range should be out of the range of most low level fear effects.Huh. I haven't actually seen one of these in play before, so you could be very well be right -- my initial impression regarding this drawback might be a bit overblown...
Out of curiousity, in your experience running this kind of long-distance character, how often have you felt you needed the extra HP this archetype gives you?
Most kineticists are going to be within 30' of the things they're trying to hurt quite frequently. Aerokineticists get extra range from a utility talent, but anybody else who wants to use a form infusion other than extended/extreme range is going to have to hang out within charge range. Extended range is really low priority when you get to do fun things like put down walls.Yeah, this kind of thing worries me too -- and it would be nice not to be wedded to one particular element. (But again, I've never actually seen one of these played before...)
I have played the Normal type of Kin. and this type of Kin for the same amount of time respectively. I have also played different elements at different levels. One of the parties I am in is very big on module play, thus I have lots of opportunities to experiment with different class builds finding one I would like to play in longer campaigns.
I have found that for this class in particular it really depends on what type of element you pick. [although most upper level infusions have a 120ft radius on them] I also know the blast infusions are a nice thing to have but: {Pro Tip} a Blast action should never cost you burn unless you are the last one standing on your team, because some of the cooler Utility talents become better with burn and worth it to spend burn on because it last longer or has a better effect.
Also I have had more normal Kin. die than PsyKin. because of the fact that the temp hit points loss stacks from normal hit points lost. This is why I started finding ways to run this class at long distances because my up close fighters constantly died. "Level five 'up it took 2 burn so -10 hp from my 40 hp total' *characters enter boss fight 'up i just got hit for 20 damage so I am up at 10 hp remaining, and yup another 20 point hit and dead'"
The powers that be kinda realized this flaw I believe and rectified it by allowing the Metamagic Invocation in the Occult Anthology book giving the class to use extended range metamagic for 1 burn [same as extended range the wild talent][this book also lets you use enlarge spell/1 burn, intuitive spell/1 burn (removes thought components), Logical spell/1 burn (removes emotional components), quicken spell/4 burn (they reprinted it in this book for some reason), Reach spell/1 burn, or Tenacious spell/ 1 burn]{Downside you need to take the feat multiple times to get all the metamagic invocations.} however three of the metamagics provided by the feat deal with range, and it says you can stake them to increase the range even more.(see the special on the feat for more information).
The Snake Infusion is also a great infusion for any element to take at 6th level. 120 line that can be bent to get around corners or cover. (Metamagic to make it even longer)
Opinion for something pazio needs to make: they need for the class is a Pure Element archtype which replaces the Expanded elements at 7th and 15th level, and omnikinesis at 20th, and provided that group of players who choose to focus in one element something better than what is normally granted by expanded element. (like spending a burn to increase the range by 25ft or 1 burn to increase the damage pool of dice by 1d6 for a single blast, or giving them a +X to hit for one blast)( Or just make the ability in parentheses above a feat they Kin. can take and call it Blast manipulation or something along those lines, because those three things are what early level Kin. (lv 1-5) can spend there burn on the most. instead of normal blast infusions)
Domain Mastery does the opposite (and more)
Sorry was getting my abilities mix up, the essence of what I was trying to say was that a bog standard cleric can buy for a relatively cheap price an item that does something similat to what an Ecclesitheurge can do.
Yes the Ecc can swap spells and Icon of Aspects can swap abilities but in some cases it might be preferable to do the latter anyway! Part of the cleric probs are that too many domain spells are ones that it gets already.
Ecc gives up a lot but doesnt deliver IMO. Blessing of the Faithful seems very underwhelming. And although the unarmoured concept is sound, its wording is too militant in that it doesnt even allow armour derived from spells..... a bizarre idea since the spells come from the deity itself!
Even a wizard can cast Mage Armour and grab a basic buckler for +5AC!
The Ecc is uber-soft and has very little it can do to mitigate this. I'm not against the uber-soft per se but 100% think that what got given back just didnt compensate.
I would never play one.
Looks like a perfectly balanced archetype to me.
For all his time manipulation ability, he can't really do all that much.
He gets a small bonuse on initiative and saves a few times a day.
He doesn't have to waste a spell slot when it fails to effect a target.
He can have two triggers for a contingency spell.
For his capstone, when he dies, he can fight on for a few extra rounds as though he didn't die, after which, he stays dead.He has to give up arcane bond and his 10th, 15th, and 20th-level feats. It's certainly cool, but not necessarily more powerful. Those feats could have been some really potent metamagic, for example.
I will have to reserve full judgement until I see all the gory details.... but it doesnt bode well IMO
You have to bear in mind that.... bonus feats dont equal feats. Its close but its not the same. And the Chronomancer doesnt even give up all of them. The Chronomancer has gained 'Standard action enhancers' and these are v.powerful. Metamagic feat options are OK but nothing to get excited about... any casting class can take them.
What exactly are these "small bonuses"??? Any bonuses to initiative and saves is v.significant.
The ability not to waste a spell slot is huge.... SOS spells are some of the nastiest around.... that ability in itself is worth some kind of feat chain let alone standalone feats!!
Contingency is a v.powerful ability... having 2 triggers for it is big news.
My initial opinion says that the archetype has overall more power than the base class... what it gives up really doesnt hinder it in any way.
Poor design.... when dealing with the #1 power class, if you want it to become more powerful in an area, it has to take meaningful hits in others... this archetype doesnt.
Honestly, I think some of the new time-themed spells in the book are much more powerful than the archetype. There's a 7th-level spell that you can cast as a swift action. When you do, it lets you cast two other spells and resolve them independently of one another. Once you've seen the individual results of both spells, you pick one, it's effects take place, and the other is treated as though it were never cast.
For example, after casting the spell, a wizard could cast temporal stasis on a demon and fireball on a group of orcs. Seeing that the demon succeeds at its saving throw against temporal stasis and that the fireball kills many orcs, the wizard chooses the fireball to take effect. The temporal stasis is treated as if it had not been cast, and its spell slot and costly material component are not expended.
Similar to above... it doesnt bode well!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about Metamagic Invocation
I think you may have missed something important about Metamagic Invocation. It requires metakinesis, but doesn't apply to the same things. It can only be applied to the "quasi-spell" wild talents gained through Kinetic Invocation (or that feat's Special entry). It doesn't apply to, say, an aerokineticist's celerity wild talent or a blast with the wall infusion.
Sorry for any confusion. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about Metamagic InvocationI think you may have missed something important about Metamagic Invocation. It requires metakinesis, but doesn't apply to the same things. It can only be applied to the "quasi-spell" wild talents gained through Kinetic Invocation (or that feat's Special entry). It doesn't apply to, say, an aerokineticist's celerity wild talent or a blast with the wall infusion.
Sorry for any confusion. ^_^
Thank you for pointing that line out to me. I miss read it when I first was reading the feat. Thank you :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Vigilante is both the fixed fighter (avenger) and the fixed rogue (stalker.)
These are interesting suggestions... I've focused on archetypes (instead of classes) that do a class better than a class, but the latter question is awfully interesting too. (In a bit I'll post the suggestions people have made regarding classes doing other classes better as well.)
As far as this particular suggestion, let's start with the Rogue. Does the Vigilante (Stalker) do the Rogue better than the Rogue does?
The Chained Rogue does have some advantages over the Stalker:
+2 skill points/lvl
5 basic Rogue talents, 5 Advanced Rogue Talents (the Stalker can take 1 basic Rogue talent, but that's it)
Trapfinding and Trap Sense
(Improved) Uncanny Dodge
Evasion
By contrast, the Stalker has the following advantages over the Chained Rogue:
Good Will saves
10 Vigilante talents
10 Social talents
Dual Identity, Unshakeable, Appearance Abilities
Comparing them: The Stalker can get Evasion and Improved Evasion with a Vigilante Talent (and the Rogue needs to spend an Advanced Rogue talent to get Improved Evasion anyway), and Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge with another Vigilante Talent. So substracting these abilities, 2 Vigilante talents, and an Advanced Rogue talent, leaves them on a par.
Let's say Trapfinding, Trap Sense and the slight edge w Sneak attack vs Hidden Attack is about on a par with things like Dual Identity, Unshakeable and the Appearance abilities. So we can drop those.
Given the existence of things like the Cunning feat (and the Social talent that boosts skills), it looks like the +2 skill points/lvl boost Rogues get is worth about 2 feats. And good vs poor Will saves is worth 1-3 feats (a scaling +2-to-+6 bonus); so let's say these balance off, and drop them too.
Finally, Rogue talents are supposed to be worth about 1/2 feat apiece (according to developers); Advanced Rogue talents are clearly better, maybe 1 feat apiece. By contrast, Vigilante talents are awesome; about 2+ feats apiece. And Social talents are pretty good too, especially when you consider new ones like Intrigue Feat, which allow you to trade a Social talent for a feat; that puts them at about 1 feat apiece.
That leaves us with:
Chained Rogue: 5 Rogue talents, 4 Advanced Rogue talents [about 6.5 feats-worth]
Stalker: 8 Vigilante talents, 10 Social talents [About 26+ feats-worth]
That gives the Stalker about 20 feats-worth of advantages. And the Stalker can do *pretty* much anything a Chained Rogue could do, and much more besides. So yeah, it looks like the Stalker is strictly better_2 (and better_1) than the Chained Rogue. I'm convinced!
The Unchained Rogue gets the following additional advantages:
Finesse Training
Debilitating Injury
Rogue's Edge (x4)
Finesse Training is roughly worth about 2 feats (Weapon Finesse and Slashing Grace), and Rogue's Edge is worth 4 feats (for the 4 skill unlocks). And Debilitating Injury is awfully nice; maybe worth 2-3 feats?
But that still puts leaves the Stalker with about 11-12 feats-worth of advantages over the Unchained Rogue. And, again, it looks like the Stalker can do pretty much anything an Unchained Rogue can do, those it's not as obvious in this case. So it looks like the Stalker is strictly better_2 (and better_1) than the Unchained Rogue too. I'm convinced!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Vigilante is both the fixed fighter (avenger) and the fixed rogue (stalker.)
OK. What about the Avenger versus the Fighter?
Before the Weapon Master's Handbook and the Armor Master's Handbook, I think it would be easy to make the case that the Avenger is strictly better.
Now it seems like a tricky comparison to make, and one that's level-dependent. For example, at levels 1-4 I think the Avenger is clearly better_2 (and better_1). They're both full BAB with d10 HD. And the Avenger gets more skill points, many more class skills, a couple nice Vigilante and Social talents, and two good saves instead of one. The Fighter gets a couple combat feats, heavy armor proficiency... and that's about it.
But at (say) levels 13+ I think the Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options really pull the Fighter ahead, especially they go for heavy armor and 2Hing attacks. E.g., at this point it's easy for a Fighter to effectively have three good saves (Armed Bravery, Fighter's Reflexes), to have a further +5/+5 advantage when attacking with their main weapon (Weapon Training and Gloves of Dueling), to have heavy armor they can move at full speed in, with a further +4 armor bonus to AC, a further +4 shield bonus to AC (while 2Hing) and a further DR 3/- (Armor Specialization, Armored Juggernaut, Defensive Weapon Training and a +4 Greatsword), and even some (effective) max ranks in several further skills (Versatile Training, Adaptable Training).
So at levels 13+, I think the Fighter really does better_2 (and better_1) than the Avenger at fitting the concept of being the pre-eminent "heavy duty" melee combatant...
So overall, I guess it seems like a open question... at low levels, the Avenger does look strictly better (in both senses), while at high levels the Fighter looks better... Hrmm... Interesting!
By almost anyone with any RPG nous it is obviously OP.
It is banned by PFS.
while I have no issue with your logic, what makes a Pact Wizard so OP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
while I have no issue with your logic, what makes a Pact Wizard so OP?
By almost anyone with any RPG nous it is obviously OP.
It is banned by PFS.
Ah, so if PFS is the ultimate decider of OP, then the Razmiran Priest is perfectly balanced? Makes sense.
The Pact Wizard is considered OP because of what it gives up- a few feats. It gains a limited refill power, an Oracle curse, and the ability to gain a Witch's patron's spells as spontaneous casts. It also gains the Fast Study wizard discovery for free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the updated list, including the suggestions about one class doing another class better_1:
- Invulnerable Rager(?)
- Scarred Rager(?)
- Divine Paragon(?)
- Ecclesitheurge(?)
- Wandering Exorcist(?)
- [class] Vigilante (Avenger)(?)
- Maverick(?)
- Pistolero(?)
- Throne Warden(?)
- Qinggong Monk
- Maneuver Master(?)
- Master of Many Styles(?)
- Guide
- Sanctified Slayer(?)
- Empiricist
- Phantom Thief (skill-focused subtype), Eldritch Scoundrel (magic-focused subtype), Knife Master&Scout (stacked) (combat-focused subtype)
- [class] Investigator (skill-focused)(?), Slayer (combat-focused)(?)
- [class] Vigilante (Stalker)
- Master Summoner(?)
- Daring Champion(?)
- Noble Fencer
- Virtuoso Bravo(?)
- Teisatsu
- Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain(?)
- Exploiter(?)
- Thassilonian Sin Specialist(?)
I'm especially curious about the entries without question marks. Is there a general consensus that the Guide is a better_1 Ranger, the Empiricist is a better_1 Investigator, the Vigilante (Stalker) is a better_1 Rogue, the Noble Fencer is a better_1 Swashbuckler, and the Teisatsu is a better_1 Vigilante (Stalker)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
while I have no issue with your logic, what makes a Pact Wizard so OP?
3 + 1/2 int times per day you can roll twice and take the better result on initiative, a caster level check, a concentration check, or a saving throw. Starting at the 15th level you add your Intelligence bonus to both rolls whenever you do this. For all intents and purposes this is automatic success. Also he gets limited spontaneous spellcasting and metamagic cost reduction.
And what do you give up for this ridiculous list of options? Just your bonus feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Vigilante is both the fixed fighter (avenger) and the fixed rogue (stalker.)OK. What about the Avenger versus the Fighter?
Before the Weapon Master's Handbook and the Armor Master's Handbook, I think it would be easy to make the case that the Avenger is strictly better.
Now it seems like a tricky comparison to make, and one that's level-dependent. For example, at levels 1-4 I think the Avenger is clearly better_2 (and better_1). They're both full BAB with d10 HD. And the Avenger gets more skill points, many more class skills, a couple nice Vigilante and Social talents, and two good saves instead of one. The Fighter gets a couple combat feats, heavy armor proficiency... and that's about it.
Avenger Vigilante is only a d8 class, not d10.
And vigilante loses for me on having lower HP, but mostly on having no combat booster. The fighter's weapon training puts it nicely ahead of the vigilante. So while having more skills, you're really not a GOOD beat stick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like being full BAB means you don't really need a combat booster, a lot of 3/4 BAB classes have a combat booster in order to keep pace in accuracy (but not iteratives) with their full BAB pals. For me, the Avenger is pretty much the fighter I want to play: Is good at a lot of things including fighting, is not overtly supernatural, has early access to fighty things.
I will gladly trade "best beat stick around" for "competent beatstick who is useful in a wide variety of situations." Plus the Avenger gets pounce, which is all any martial really needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Avenger Vigilante is only a d8 class, not d10.
Ah, good catch.
And vigilante loses for me on having lower HP, but mostly on having no combat booster. The fighter's weapon training puts it nicely ahead of the vigilante. So while having more skills, you're really not a GOOD beat stick.
Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the thought that you need a combat boosters to be an effective beat stick.
But to be fair, the Avenger does have several combat boosters available to them (e.g., Fist of the Avenger, Lethal Grace, Shield of Blades). So I think the Avenger qualifies as an effective beat stick. Moreover, the Avenger can get these starting at level 2. The Fighter, by contrast, doesn't get any real combat boosters until level 5. (That's why I suggested the Avenger was strictly better_1 and better_2 than the Fighter during levels 1-4.)
But starting level 5 the Fighter starts to catch up, and by level 13 the Fighter clearly pulls ahead -- none of the boosts the Avenger can get compare to what a well-built level 13+ fighter can get given the Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options.
I was thinking that leaves the comparison a tricky business, though. Because there are at least some levels (indeed, the ones that get the most play) during which the Avenger seems clearly better than the Fighter. And there are other levels (albeit, ones that don't see much play) during which the Fighter seems clearly better than the Avenger (at least at being a durable beat stick)...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter's Weapon Training doesn't just give you combat boosters -- those are nice to have, but what you REALLY want from this is the unlocking of various kinds of neat stuff: Advanced Weapon Training, Weapon Mastery feats, and various other stuff that I can't remember off the top of my head.
The armor boost that the vigilante gets is really the only boost it gets. fist of avenger and lethal grace are just keeping the damage of "bad" options good.
But like all Full bab classes have access to combat steroids.
Barbs have rage
paladins have smite, potentially weapon bond, and spells
Rangers have FE and tiny buff from spells
Fighters have weapon training and fighter feats for extra accuracy and damage.
Some cavalier orders have accuracy and their challenge is damage
Slayers have their studied targets
Unchained monks get free attack(s)
So the vigilante being full bab is just a slight buff over being a 3/4 bab class rather than really competing with the other full bab classes.
And compared to most 3/4 bab classes it falls like in the middle of the pack. Getting +1 to accuracy every 4 levels, and then trading that accuracy for damage via power attack and getting 2 attacks sooner, when compared to inquisitors, investigators, and alchemists who also get the same 6+int skills that the vigilante gets you can see that it is just like keeping up with them and not really ahead of them.
So it's definitely a viable front line guy, but at the end of full bab guys.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Avenger Vigilante isn't fighter+ per se. For an intelligent, rough-and-tumble leader of men that's the Vanguard Slayer.
Yes it won't win the DPR Olympics but it has combat boosters, the same HD and BAB, good fort and reflex save, initiative bonus, the ability to hand out teamwork feats, and enough skill points to really keep up with some of the other faces. It certain beats the Lore Warden and Duelist for Intelligent Fighter in my mind.
Avenger Vigilante is instead Swashbuckler+. Again it won't win a pure damage game but it is the highly mobile frontliner that the Swashbuckler was promised to be.
With close the gap and mad rush, it can move while keeping damage and without sucking a million AoOs. It has a good reflex will save, good amount of skills with in-class boosters to face skills, and full bab.
This is more inline with the root of both classes: The Scarlet Pimpernel. Percy is an excellent talker and can hold his own in a sword fight but is outmatched by his nemesis who is a career soldier. It's Percy's quick-thinking and ability to lead that wins the day rather than skill-at-arms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My theory is that if you remove some aberrant options (for example, off the top of my head, the raging weapon enhancement, Way of the Shooting Star, Primalist Bloodrager), all the martials, 4th, and 6th level casters are well-balanced, with few notable exceptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Avenger Vigilante isn't fighter+ per se. For an intelligent, rough-and-tumble leader of men that's the Vanguard Slayer.
Yes it won't win the DPR Olympics but it has combat boosters, the same HD and BAB, good fort and reflex save, initiative bonus, the ability to hand out teamwork feats, and enough skill points to really keep up with some of the other faces. It certain beats the Lore Warden and Duelist for Intelligent Fighter in my mind.
Yeah, interesting. Darigaaz the Igniter suggested earlier that the Slayer is a better_1 Fighter:
I think an argument can be made that the slayer "does_1" the fighter better than the fighter; in the vein of "customizable magicless slayer of monsters and men who masters their chosen combat style".
Crunch-wise, the option to pick up extra feats and ignore their prereqs like the ranger without the extra naturey stuff added on just feels like more of a fit to me. The extra skill points and talents certainly help, too.
And that seems pretty plausible. In response, I think I said that I still wasn't sure, with the advent of Advanced Armor and Weapon Training options, whether the slayer was still a better_1 Fighter. But this suggestions has been growing on me...
Now, you've suggested the Vanguard archetype in particular. Let's see... replaces Track (which doesn't seem particularly fitting with the general idea of the Fighter) with a bonus to initiative. Nice. Replaces Stalker (another ability which doesn't seem particularly fitting with the general idea of the Fighter) with never being considered unaware of a combatant, and always being able to act in surprise rounds. That's also nice, and fitting with the idea of the Fighter as someone whose always ready to fight in virtually any circumstance.
Finally, it replaces the 2nd and 4th level slayer talents with a Tactician ability and the ability to partially share their studied target bonuses with allies. That does nicely fit the idea of a martial master who can share their expertise with other people. The main drawback of this replacement is that it prevents them from picking the "Ranger Combat Style" Slayer Talent until 6th level. Hrmm...
Still, overall, it's arguably an even better_1 fit with the idea behind the Fighter than the default Slayer. And the default Slayer already does a pretty good job...
Avenger Vigilante is instead Swashbuckler+. Again it won't win a pure damage game but it is the highly mobile frontliner that the Swashbuckler was promised to be.
With close the gap and mad rush, it can move while keeping damage and without sucking a million AoOs. It has a good reflex will save, good amount of skills with in-class boosters to face skills, and full bab.
Another interesting suggestion! I was focused on the Noble Fencer as being the Swashbuckler+, but now that you bring it up, the Avenger does an awfully good job too. The Avenger has even more skill points, with the social talents to allow them to do an even better job at the charming charismatic face-type than the Noble Fencer. And while they won't be quite as good, combat-wise (I think), the Lethal Grace talent allows them to be an effective finesse-using one-hander. Without Nimble, it's a little harder for the Avenger to get the "lightly armored but hard to hit" idea to work... hrmm... But Nimble never really did that much in the first place, to be honest.
So... that looks pretty good. Between the Avenger and the Noble Fencer, I'm not sure which is best_1 at fitting the idea behind the Swashbuckler. But it's pretty plausible that the Avenger is a better_1 Swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler. Nice!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My theory is that if you remove some aberrant options (for example, off the top of my head, the raging weapon enhancement, Way of the Shooting Star, Primalist Bloodrager), all the martials, 4th, and 6th level casters are well-balanced, with few notable exceptions.
Close, but not quite: the core fighter, rogue, and monk are not balanced, and the basic swashbuckler and cavalier have some problems as well ().
All that said, I feel strongly that PF could use an overhaul: not a new edition as D&D'ers understand it, but more like a Call of Cthulu edition, or even more minor.
What I'd want most, is for the rules to basically stay the same, but to have an all new Core Rulebook, with a different set of 11 classes (20th-level classes) to be the new "Core" classes, and an extremely extensive reorganization of the layout, and options presented within, including (perhaps) fewer spells, but more kinds, and (along with classes) replacing/reorganizing several feats and prestige classes with others, plus a few archetypes and traits brought into the Core book.
I'd suggest that this would be incredibly useful to PF in marketing its own basic concepts, and making a more cohesive game that displays what it's actually trying to do as a whole.
And, all of this can be done without resetting the system: PF will still be PF, and really the only thing that changes is how internally cohesive the whole thing feels, while creating a valid series of options for broad use across PFS and other groups.
... but that's just, like, my opinion, man. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, of course, was talking about the Advanced Fighter, the UnRogue, the UnMonk and the UnSummoner.
And yeah, I think there's a consensus that PF2.0 needs to happen, but everyone has their own ideas about it.
I'd like to see more class consolidation –– I think the Vigilante, the Swashbuckler, the Gunslinger, the Slayer and the Fighter are the same class, but they don't know it. Like the Vigilante got it wrong – it should have been a subclass option for the Fighter and Rogue, not the other way around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^I'll agree that a lot of classes and a whole lot of archetypes should be consolidated into a much smaller number of classes that have various selectable class options to get with a small number of classes what now requires a lot of classes and a whole lot of archetypes.
Of course, if you go far enough with this, you would get an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants and Masterminds . . . which actually sounds like a pretty cool idea.
There are just too many archetypes IMO.... and quite possibly classes that could have been covered with archetypes.
I, of course, was talking about the Advanced Fighter, the UnRogue, the UnMonk and the UnSummoner.
And yeah, I think there's a consensus that PF2.0 needs to happen, but everyone has their own ideas about it.
I'd like to see more class consolidation –– I think the Vigilante, the Swashbuckler, the Gunslinger, the Slayer and the Fighter are the same class, but they don't know it. Like the Vigilante got it wrong – it should have been a subclass option for the Fighter and Rogue, not the other way around.
Melding all those classes seems good to me. While the Vigilante might be more difficult to meld into another class (their archetypes make them a lot of different things, so probably keep them separate, but I wish both fighter and rogue got some of the vigilante talents to compensate for some of their serious power, like Mad Rush is insulting being only available to vigilantes and not fighters), I think Slayers should never have existed and Gunslingers and Swashbucklers should have been some kind of alternative fighter.